Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISS ION
RECORD OFPUBLIC COMMENTS
RACINE COUNTY PUBLICTRANSIT PLAN: 2012-2016
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSINREGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
KENOSHA COUNTY RACINE COUNTY
MILWAUKEE COUNTY WALWORTH COUNTY
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Kimberly L. Breunig
Adelene Greene,
Robert W. Pitts
Secretary
Gilbert B. Bakke
Susan S. Greenfield
William R. Drew,
Vice Chairman
John Rogers
John F. Weishan, Jr.
Gregory L. Holden
Nancy Russell,
Treasurer
Thomas H. Buestrin
William E. Johnson
Gus W. Wirth, Jr.
OZAUKEE COUNTY
WAUKESHA COUNTY
Daniel S. Schmidt
Daniel W. Stoffel
David L. Stroik,
Chairman
James T. Dwyer
Paul G. Vrakas
Kenneth R. Yunker, PE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Director
William J. Stauber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Land Use Planner
Executive
Stephen P.Adams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Involvement and
Outreach Manager
Nancy M.Anderson,AICP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Community
Assistance Planner
Michael G. Hahn, PE, PH . . . . . . Chief Environmental Engineer
Christopher T. Hiebert, PE. . . . . Chief Transportation Engineer
ElizabethA. Larsen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business Manager
John G. McDougall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographic Information
Systems Manager
John R. Meland . . . . . . . Chief Economic Development Planner
Dr. Donald M. Reed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Biologist
Donald P. Simon, RLS . . . . . . . . . . . . Chief Planning Illustrator
RACINE COUNTY OFFICIALS
RACINE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
RACINE COUNTY STAFF
CITY OF RACINE TRANSIT AND PARKING COMMISSION
CITY OF RACINE STAFF
James A. Ladwig
Peter L. Hansen, Chairman
Julie Anderson, Planning and Development
Director, Racine County Planning Commission
Jonathan Delagrave, Director, Racine County
Human Services Department
Alice Oliver, Manager, Workforce Development Center
Sarah Brossard, Mobility Manager
Ray DeHahn, Alderman, Chairman
Deborah Ganaway
John Heckenlively
Mark Kowbel
Kristin Niemec
Thomas Friedel, City Administrator
Brian O’Connell, Director of City Development
Richard M. Jones, Commissioner of Public Works
Albert Stanek, Parking and Transit Systems Manager
RACINE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
CITY OF RACINE OFFICALS
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF RACINE
COMMON COUNCIL
Gilbert Bakke
Joseph F. Bellante, III
Katherine Buske
Russell A. Clark
David Cooke
Mike Dawson
Gaynell Dyess
Mark M. Gleason
Robert D. Grove
Jeff Halbach
Kenneth Hall
Kenneth Lumpkin
Robert N. Miller
Ronald Molnar
Monte Osterman
Thomas Pringle
Pamela Zenner-Richards
James C. Rooney
Q. A. Shakoor, II
Daniel F. Sharkozy
Donnie Snow
John Wisch
Pamela Zenner-Richards, Chairman
Gaynell Dyess, Vice-Chairman
Robert N. Miller, Secretary
Gilbert Bakke
David J. Cooke
Jeff Halbach
John Dickert
Gregory T. Helding, President
Melissa Kaprelian-Becker
Raymond DeHahn
O. Keith Fair
Ronald Hart
Jim Kaplan
Eric Marcus
Terrence McCarthy
Jim Morgenroth
Robert Mozol
Q. A. Shakoor, II
Michael D. Shields
Sandy J. Weidner
Dennis Wiser
Aron Wisneski
RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2012-2016
Prepared by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive P.O. Box 1607
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607 www. sewrpc.org
June 2011
(This page intentionally left blank)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS MADE FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, DURING DISCUSSION GROUPS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT IN RACINE COUNTY ............................................................. 2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2009, REGARDING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN ................................................................................................................. 4 APPENDICES
Appendix A ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, DURING DISCUSSION GROUPS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT IN RACINE COUNTY
A-1 RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND REPRESENTATIVES OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES ........................................ A-1 A-2 RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES ......................... A-3 A-3 RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH TRANSIT USERS IN THE CITY OF RACINE ................................................ A-6
Appendix B COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 THROUGH NOVEMBER 1, 2009, REGARDING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2012-2016
B-1 WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED BY MAIL, EMAIL, FAX, OR ONLINE COMMENT FORM ............................................................................ B-1 B-2 WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS ................. B-2 B-3 COMMENTS FROM INTERACTIVE BOARDS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS ........................................................................................................ B-5 B-4 ORAL COMMENTS PRESENTED TO COURT REPORTERS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS ......................................................................................... B-12 Appendix C ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS HELD OCTOBER 27 AND 28, AND NOVEMBER 4, 2009 ....... C-1 Appendix D COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS HELD IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, 2009, AND SUMMARY MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED AT THOSE MEETINGS D-1 PAID NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS ...................................................... D-1 D-2 PRESS RELEASE AND LIST OF MEDIA OUTLETS ..................................... D-2 D-3 RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN NEWSLETTER: EDITION 1, OCTOBER 2009 ............................................................................ D-3 D-4 RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN SUMMARY BROCHURE: FEBRUARY 2009 ....................................................................... D-7 D-5 PRESENTATIONS GIVEN AT PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS ...................................................................... D-9 D-6 DISPLAY BOARDS AT PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS .............. D-16
iv
Appendix E NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS CONCERNING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2011-2015 .................... E-1
APPENDICES
(This page intentionally left blank)
RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2012-2016
INTRODUCTION This report documents the public comments received on the Racine County Public Transit Plan from September 10, 2009 through November 20, 2009, and consists of a summary of the comments received and a series of appendices:
Oral comments made during three discussion groups between September 10, 2009 and September 28, 2009 (Appendix A)
Written and oral comments received from October 1, 2009 through November 20, 2009 (Appendix B).
Attendance records of public informational meetings held October 27, 2009, through November 4, 2009 (Appendix C).
Materials announcing the three public informational meetings and summary materials distributed at those meetings (Appendix D).
Newspaper articles and editorials concerning the Racine County Public Transit Plan (Appendix E). Background Commission staff solicited public input on the Racine County Public Transit Plan via three methods: First, staff conducted three “discussion groups” on September 10, 16, and 28, 2009, with representatives from workforce development and private businesses; human services agencies; and transit users, respectively. A total of 23 people participated in the discussion groups, which are documented in Appendix A. Second, Commission and County staff held three public informational meetings on October 27 and 28, and November 4, 2009, in the City of Racine, Town of Burlington, and Village of Sturtevant, respectively. The purpose of these meetings was to obtain comments on the unmet needs for transit services in the County, as well as to distribute information and provide an update on the plan to interested parties. A total of 65 people attended the three public meetings, which are documented in Appendices B and C. The third way that the Commission solicited public comment was through advertising and outreach, as documented in Appendix D. A display advertisement regarding the public informational meetings was published in newspapers throughout Racine County. The ads supplemented the information provided in the Racine County Public Transit Plan Newsletter 1, prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission staff
2
and direct-mailed to over 750 interested parties, including chief elected officials in Racine County, as well as County Board members and the Commission’s list of central city, minority, and low-income groups and organizations. Newsletter 1, which is also included in Appendix D, summarized the work completed to-date on the plan as of October 2009, including a description of the existing transit services provided in the County; information on historic and current population, employment, land use, and travel patterns in the County; and an overview of the evaluation of the existing City of Racine Belle Urban System services, including the identification of unmet transit travel needs in both the eastern and western parts of the County. Newsletter 1 was available and distributed as a handout at the meetings. The following sections summarize the comments made during the three discussion groups held from September 10 through September 28, 2009, and during the public comment period from October 1, 2009 through November 20, 2009. SUMMARY OF ORAL COMMENTS MADE FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, DURING DISCUSSION GROUPS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT IN RACINE COUNTY Commission staff summarized the observations made during the three discussion groups with representatives from workforce development and private businesses; human services agencies; and transit users into 45 comments. These 45 comments are documented in Appendix A. Comments Specifically about the Belle Urban System The workforce development and private businesses discussion group, and the transit users discussion group, were asked several questions specifically about the Belle Urban System. Their comments can be summarized into the following themes:
Comments about Belle Urban System Route Schedules and Hours
Participants in the transit users discussion group believed that overall, the bus system works well and is very helpful, while participants in the workforce development and private businesses discussion group believed that overall, the bus system was confusing and hard to use.
Both groups agreed that the current Belle Urban System midday schedule is confusing. Between 9:30 am and 3:00 pm, the bus routes alternate between 30- and 60-minute headways.
The transit users discussion group believed strongly that the limited service on Sundays and the lack of service on holidays was a hardship for people who depend on transit.
The transit users discussion group said that student overcrowding on buses is a problem, especially on Route No. 3, where students are often unruly.
Comments about Routes or Route Alignments
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group believed that the existing configuration of bus routes in the system was “old” and needed to be updated to serve the existing population and businesses. However, the transit users discussion group believed that the bus routes were mostly good, other than Route Nos. 20, 27, and 86.
The transit users discussion group believed that the circular design of Route No. 86 made travel by bus to some of the destinations on that route very inconvenient.
Comments about Routes Serving Suburbs around the City of Racine
The transit users discussion group believed that there was a need to improve the bus service between the City and to the Renaissance Industrial Park, Amtrak Station, and Grandview Industrial Park in the Village of Sturtevant.
3
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group indicated that while there was a need for transportation from the perspective of job seekers, the employers in the suburbs are generally not concerned about transportation for recruiting employees. They also believed that businesses and communities outside the City of Racine are unlikely to cooperate financially to provide more public transit services.
Other Comments about the Belle Urban System
The transit users discussion group believed strongly that more passenger shelters at bus stops were needed
The transit users discussion group also indicated that the bus system needed to improve its customer service and be more proactive about providing information to transit users, and recommended providing a “day pass” for unlimited rides on the transit system for one day.
Comments about the Extent of Need for Transportation between Eastern Racine County and Western Racine County. All three discussion groups were asked about the extent of need for transportation between the City of Racine and Union Grove and Burlington. Their answers can be summarized as follows:
Both the workforce development and private businesses discussion group, as well as the human services agencies discussion group, said that people who live in the western part of Racine County rarely go to the City of Racine, and are more connected to Milwaukee County than eastern Racine County.
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group also believed that workers from the City of Racine would be unlikely to use employment transportation to Union Grove and/or Burlington because of the distance and time of the commute; low wages offered by potential employers in those areas; and the perception (real or perceived) that those communities would be difficult to work in because of racism. However, the transit users discussion group believed that workers from the City of Racine would use employment transportation services if they could get to jobs in Union Grove and Burlington.
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group believed that, even though employment transportation is a low priority for major businesses, some large employers in the Burlington area may need transportation for workers from the City of Racine when the economy recovers.
Comments about the Unmet Needs for Transit Services in Western Racine County. The human services agencies discussion group, which included several agencies with a strong presence in the western part of the county, was asked several questions about the current deficiencies in the transportation services in the rural part of the County and what kinds of transportation services might work in that area. Their comments can be summarized into the following points:
There is a need for a service that can provide transportation for evening and weekend trips.
There is a need for a service for people who are elderly and don’t drive, but don’t qualify for the County’s “transportation-handicapped” service.
There is a need for affordable transportation service for people who need regular dialysis or other medical appointments, but don’t qualify for Title 19 (Medicaid) transportation.
There is a need for affordable, wheelchair-accessible transportation for last-minute “crisis” transportation that is not medical-related.
A subsidized shared-ride taxi in the western part of the county could address the unmet transportation needs identified and could be successful if it were focused on serving the Burlington area.
A flexible shuttle service in the Burlington area could also address some of the needs for transportation.
Seniors and people with disabilities may need special travel training to teach people how to use a shared-ride taxi or a shuttle service. Transit services for low-income households may need to provide car seats for infants and children.
4
Comments Regarding the Extent of Need for Alternative Public Transportation Services in Racine County All three discussion groups were asked about the extent of need for non-traditional types of publicly-assisted transportation services that that could be offered in the County. Their answers can be summarized as follows:
Both the workforce development and private businesses discussion group, as well as the transit users discussion group, strongly believed there is a need for a taxi service in the City of Racine that can respond to a request for service within an hour.
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group and the transit users discussion group were interested in the concept of vanpools to businesses and corporate parks that are driven by volunteer drivers.
The idea of carpooling was dismissed by the transit users group because it is not dependable for every-day transportation.
The human services agencies discussion group discussed the idea of volunteer driver programs to address some of the transportation needs for ambulatory seniors and low-income households. However, they noted that it is difficult to recruit and retain volunteer drivers. They also suggested that the County and other human services agencies should cooperate to create a voucher program for people who need transportation in the rural part of the County.
Comments Identifying Needs for Transit Connections to Other Counties All three discussion groups were asked about the extent of need for transportation between Racine County and adjacent Counties. Their answers can be summarized as follows:
The transit users discussion group believed that there is a need for transit service to Kenosha County, including a need to restore transit service from Racine to UW-Parkside, and a need for transportation to business parks in eastern Kenosha County.
The transit users discussion group believed that the Wisconsin Coach Lines route between the City of Kenosha and Milwaukee County is very useful and would benefit from more frequent service.
The workforce development and private businesses discussion group, as well as the human service agencies discussion group, believed that commuter bus service from Burlington, Waterford, and Rochester along Highway 36 to Milwaukee County might be successful.
The workforce development and private businesses group said that participants in County workforce development training programs report having problems getting transportation from Racine to jobs in the Cities of Franklin and Oak Creek in southern Milwaukee County.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2009 REGARDING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN From October 1, 2009 through November 20, 2009, a total of 54 comments were made regarding the Racine County Public Transit Plan. The comments were provided during discussion groups, on comment forms available at public informational meetings and to court reporters at those meetings, or via letter, e-mail, fax, or through the Commission website. General Comments in Favor or Opposed to Transit in the City and County A total of nine comments expressed general support for (or general opposition) to transit and the transit plan.
Two comments expressed general support for the Racine County Public Transit Plan.
Two comments expressed support for expanding transit services in the County in general.
5
Three comments expressed their support for transit by citing specific benefits of transit: one commenter said transit can benefit an area by reducing fuel demand and fuel prices. One commenter said that transit service is necessary to access jobs. A final commenter noted that people need transportation options, even in a depressed economy.
One comment expressed opposition to transit, stating that the Racine County Public Transit Plan is short-sighted because it does not recognize that the automobile is the preferred transportation mode in the County.
Several people at the Public Informational Meeting held in the Town of Burlington made oral comments to commission staff in opposition to transit for Western Racine County, because it would be an unnecessary increase in government spending.
Comments Identifying Suggested Improvements to the Belle Urban System A total of seventeen comments had specific suggestions for improving the Belle Urban System. Those comments can be further divided into comments about the transit system’s schedule or hours; about routes serving areas just outside the City of Racine, and about potential capital improvements. Comments about Belle Urban System Route Schedules and Hours
Three comments expressed a desire for more frequent service on the system. One comment requested restoring the frequency of service to every 30 minutes and for service on all routes to operate seven days a week. One comment expressed a need for shorter wait times for connections to other routes. One comment suggested that 20-minute headways be considered on more popular routes, such as Route Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
One comment suggested adjusting the bus schedules and increasing the frequency of service to improve the ability of students to use the Belle Urban System to get to schools in the Racine Unified School District, especially Washington Park High School and McKinley Middle School.
One comment suggested that bus service be provided on holidays and until midnight on weekends.
One comment suggested that Route No. 3 be extended to the Wal-Mart on South Oakes Road.
One comment said that Route No. 5 should not be cut and should be operated through downtown Racine without stopping.
Comments about Routes Serving Suburbs around the City of Racine
Two commenters expressed a need to improve bus service between downtown Racine and the Amtrak station and Renaissance Cinema in the Village of Sturtevant, noting that this bus service does not operate on weekends.
Two commenters expressed support for expanding service to the communities around Racine, and increasing the frequency of existing service between the City and surrounding communities.
Two additional comments specifically expressed support for continuing service on Route Nos. 1 and 5 to Greentree Shopping Center in the Village of Caledonia.
Comments about Potential Capital Improvements to the Belle Urban System
Two comments suggested a need for more bus shelters to protect riders from weather elements, with one person specifically suggesting more bus shelters near schools.
One comment suggested that the Downtown Transit Center be expanded to include services such as a deli or coffee shop, a stop for airport express service and Greyhound intercity bus service, or vending for bus passes or tokens.
One comment suggested that existing buses be replaced with hybrid buses to save money and preserve the environment.
6
Comments Identifying Needs for Transit Connections to Other Counties A total of 21 comments identified a need for transit services that would connect to other transit systems in surrounding Counties.
Four comments expressed support for restoring bus service to UW-Parkside. The Belle Urban System used to operate Route No. 9 to UW-Parkside but eliminated that route in 2006 when the UW-Parkside student government decided to stop paying for the service.
Two comments expressed support for a transit service that would connect to the Kenosha Area Transit system.
Two comments expressed a need to develop a regional, integrated, and multi-modal transit system.
Seven comments were related to the potential commuter rail line between Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee (KRM). Four of those comments expressed general support for a KRM commuter rail line, with one of those stating that the commuter rail would promote employment and economic development. Two comments stated that the area needs good bus service to improve potential connections to a future KRM commuter rail line. One comment stated that the Racine County Transit Plan should include a discussion on rail transit, such as Amtrak and the potential KRM commuter rail service.
Two comments indicated a need for better marketing of the Wisconsin Coach Lines service between Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee. One comment suggested that bus service be operated over STH 32 to connect to Kenosha Area Transit and the Metra station in downtown Kenosha, indicating that the commenter was not aware of the existing Wisconsin Coach Lines Service. Another commenter asked where the bus stop was for the Wisconsin Coach Lines service, noting that she had not known of the route prior to the public meeting.
Two comments suggested that a Greyhound bus stop be added in Racine, either at the Downtown Transit Center or at the IH 94 and STH 20 interchange.
One comment suggested that bus service between downtown Racine and the STH 20/IH 94 area be maintained and improved, including the bus connections to Coach USA/Wisconsin Coach Lines service to Milwaukee and Chicago.
One comment expressed support for a new transit service to Oak Creek and Franklin that would connect with the Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS).
Comments Identifying Need for Transit Services in Rural Racine County
Two commenters expressed support for a dial-a-ride service in Racine County. One of the commenters noted that such a service could aid the growing population of seniors in the rural parts of the county, stating that many seniors cannot or should not be operating an automobile.
One comment suggested that park-ride lots be added in western Racine County, particularly at STH 20 and USH 45, and at the interchange of South Pine Street and the STH 83 Burlington bypass.
Comments with Concerns or Suggestions that are Beyond the Scope of the Racine County Public Transit Plan Three comments raised concerns or offered suggestions for transportation improvements that are beyond the scope of what will be considered in the Racine County Public Transit Plan.
Two comments suggested that bicycles and pedestrians be considered in the plan. One comment expressed support for bicycle lanes, and another for bike racks at downtown businesses.
One comment expressed a need for better automobile access between Racine area and Milwaukee and IH 94, such as expanding STH 32 or STH 38 to four lanes or extending IH 794 into the County.
Appendix A
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2009, DURING DISCUSSION GROUPS REGARDING PUBLIC TRANSIT IN RACINE COUNTY
(This page intentionally left blank)
A-1
Appendix A-1
RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND REPRESENTATIVES OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES
DATE: Thursday, September 10, 2009 2-4 p.m. PLACE: Racine County Human Services Center
1717 Taylor Avenue, Racine, WI
FACILITATOR: Gary Korb, Regional Planning Educator, UW-Extension and SEWRPC
DISCUSSION GROUP MEMBERS:
Roger Caron, Racine Area Manufacturers and Commerce
Mike Foy, Director of Human Resources, InSinkErator
Jeff Hoey, President, Shurpac
Debbie Jossart, Director of Racine County Human Services
Gordy Kacala, Racine County Economic Development Corporation
Mark Mundl, case manager, Racine County Workforce Development
Alice Oliver, Director, Racine County Workforce Development
STAFF:
Albert A. Beck, Principal Planner, SEWRPC
Sonia Dubielzig, Senior Planner, SEWRPC
Chris Reuwer, Racine County Mobility Manager, Racine County Workforce Development QUESTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE GROUP, AND KEY COMMENTS ARISING OUT OF DISCUSSION (COMMENTS ARE ITALICIZED):
1. To what extent do employers report that they have trouble recruiting for job openings due to transportation issues? If employers report that transportation is an obstacle for their labor force, where do they tend to be located? Where is the labor force for those jobs located?
Transportation is usually not at the top of the list of employers’ recruiting concerns.
Some businesses located in the Union Grove or Burlington area have reported problems with recruiting, but in those cases the wages they were offering often were not attractive enough to draw potential employees from the City of Racine area (a drive of at least 45 minutes).
Participants in Racine County’s Workforce Development training programs report having problems getting transportation from Racine to jobs in Milwaukee County, especially in the Cities of Franklin and Oak Creek.
2. What kind of transportation services might address the needs of employees at the locations and hours identified in the discussion? (Ridesharing? Vanpools? Flexibly-routed bus service? Extension of existing bus routes or longer service hours for existing bus service?) What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of each service?
A-2
Discussion group members felt that the Belle Urban System routes are “poorly designed” and that the system and the schedule are hard to understand. They felt that the configuration of the existing bus routes was “old”, and needed to be updated to serve the current population of school children and locations of businesses. Some routes were designed to serve factories that have closed. They did not feel that expanding fixed-route transit service would address the needs of employees and employers at the locations outside the City of Racine.
Businesses and communities located outside the City are unlikely to cooperate financially to provide more public transit services.
There is a need for smaller vehicles and targeted, more flexible services. One such option could be carsharing. Businesses could also benefit from carsharing for when they need vehicles for business trips. Another option could be vanpooling to provide transportation for longer commutes. Larger businesses or business parks might also be interested in vanpools, but would want to know how they work and how much they would cost to maintain and operate.
The City of Racine needs a taxi service that can respond to a request for service within an hour. The current taxi service sometime requires 24 hours of advance notice. The advantage of the taxi service is that it is flexible and it would also give transit users or vanpool users a ride home in the case of an emergency.
3. What is the extent of need for service within Burlington, Waterford/Rochester or Union Grove areas: does it seem like most of the work commutes in those areas are short trips that stay in that area, or long commutes to destinations in neighboring counties or in the City of Racine? What do you think about the idea of commuter bus service along Highway 36 between Burlington and Milwaukee?
Some large employers in the Burlington area (such as Nestlé or Saint-Gobain) reported a need for transportation for recruiting workers prior to the recession that started in the fall of 2008. They may need transportation for their workers in the future, after the economy recovers.
In the western part of the County, connections to Milwaukee County are more important than connections to the City of Racine. A trip between the City of Burlington and the City of Franklin is shorter than a trip between the City of Burlington and the City of Racine. An express transit service along Highway 36 to Franklin and Oak Creek might be successful.
Employment transportation services to Burlington and Union Grove would be unlikely to attract many workers from the City of Racine area for several reasons: distance and time of commute; low wages of the potential jobs; and the perception (real or perceived) that those communities would be difficult to work in because of racism.
A-3
Appendix A-2
RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF HUMAN SERVICES AGENCIES
DATE: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2-4 p.m. PLACE: Union Grove Graham Public Library
1215 Main Street, Union Grove, WI FACILITATOR: Gary Korb, Regional Planning Educator, UW-Extension and SEWRPC
DISCUSSION GROUP MEMBERS:
Susan Feehrer, Retired Senior Volunteer Program
Debby Ganaway, National Alliance for the Mentally Ill
Michelle Goggins, Racine County Aging and Disability Resource Center
Sherry Hartog, Women’s Resource Center
Karen Olufs, Society’s Assets, Inc.
Susanne Malestic, Aurora Burlington Clinic
Chris Reuwer, Racine County Mobility Manager
Bill Schoessling, Love, Inc./Salvation Army
Eppy Smith, Society’s Assets, Inc.
STAFF:
Albert A. Beck, Principal Planner, SEWRPC
Sonia Dubielzig, Senior Planner, SEWRPC
Chris Reuwer, Racine County Mobility Manager, Racine County Workforce Development QUESTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE GROUP, AND KEY COMMENTS ARISING OUT OF DISCUSSION (COMMENTS ARE ITALICIZED):
1. Think back to when a consumer or someone you know had difficulty finding a transportation service for their trip. What type of trip was the person trying to make? What were the obstacles to finding transportation?
Evening and weekend travel is not served by any of the human services transportation providers in the County.
People who are elderly and don’t drive, but don’t qualify for Racine County Human Services Department transportation service for “transportation-handicapped” individuals, have trouble finding transportation for grocery shopping trips and other errands.
People who have medical problems but don’t qualify for Title 19 (Medicaid) transportation have to pay for transportation to dialysis.
2. Think back to when a person in a wheelchair or motorized wheelchair has tried to find a transportation service. How easy was it to find a service that could accommodate that person?
A-4
Wheelchair users have problems finding affordable transport services that can accommodate them at the last minute. People who are enrolled in Title 19 (Medicaid) can get subsidized transportation for last-minute medical trips. However, if they are not eligible for Title 19, the transportation costs are high.
3. What times of day seem to be the hardest to schedule last-minute trips on the available transportation providers?
People who live in the western part of the county and need last-minute transportation due to a crisis or emergency are the ones who have the hardest time finding affordable transportation. Examples include: people who were taken to the hospital via ambulance and have been discharged; people who have follow-up outpatient appointments within several days of the original doctor’s visit; people who need to get their pet to a veterinarian for an emergency visit.
4. What kind of transportation services might address the needs of elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals in Racine County, and in particular western Racine County? Volunteer driver programs? Subsidized shared-ride taxi? Flexibly-routed bus service? What do you see as the advantages, disadvantages, or obstacles to implementing each type of service?
Volunteer driver programs could help address the problem of taking people home who have been discharged from the hospital, can help with shopping trips, and with trips to Milwaukee. The disadvantage of a volunteer driver program is that it is hard to recruit and retain volunteer drivers because of their concerns about insurance, the low reimbursement rate for volunteer drivers, confusion about the reimbursement rate for volunteer drivers (it is either $0.14/mile or $0.27/mile, depending on the trip purpose) and because volunteer drivers must pay for gas for their vehicle before the trip but do not receive reimbursement until after the trip. The County and other human services agencies should cooperate to create a voucher program for transportation services in the rural part of Racine County. Vouchers would allow people to use whatever transportation service made the most sense, given the circumstance of their trip.
A subsidized shared-ride taxi would have many advantages. It could be wheelchair accessible, could provide last-minute transportation, and could also serve Title 19 (Medicaid) patients through a voucher program. Such a taxi service could be successful, particularly if it were focused on the Burlington area.
In the City of Burlington, a flexibly-routed shuttle could serve low-income people. Low-income people would probably be more willing to ride a shuttle than seniors would.
5. What type of service would be best for the more densely-developed areas in western Racine County? Burlington, Waterford/Rochester or Union Grove areas: does it seem like most of the trips in those areas are short trips that stay in that area, or long trips to destinations in neighboring counties or in the City of Racine?
Most trips stay within the area. However, the population in the Burlington area resides in three Counties: Racine, Kenosha, and Walworth County. Some people who live in Walworth County have a Burlington Post Office address and consider Burlington their community. So transit services should not stop at the Racine County line.
People in western Racine County never go to the City of Racine. They may occasionally need to go to Milwaukee County for medical reasons.
6. Thinking about the places that elderly, disabled, or low-income individuals live or go to in western Racine County, what do you think are the most popular origins or destinations, both inside and outside Racine County?
Common destinations for the low-income population:
A-5
o In Burlington: The Racine County Workforce Development office, Aurora Wellness Center, and Burlington High School on McCanna Parkway; Love, Inc. on S. Pine Street; apartment complexes on E Market Street; apartment complexes on Chapel Terrace, Boardwalk Apartments on Bridge Street, Western Racine County Human Services office on Main Street;
o Just north of Burlington: the commercial area around Walmart on STH 83; Fox Tree Circle apartments on CTH W
o The Waterford Industrial park in Waterford.
Transit services for low-income population may need to provide car seats for children.
Common destinations for seniors and people with disabilities:
o In Burlington: The Aurora Wellness Center on McCanna Parkway; the Senior Center and Western Racine County Human Services offices on Main Street; Love, Inc. on S. Pine Street; Riverview Manor retirement community on Madison Street; Boardwalk Apartments on Bridge Street; Aurora Cancer Clinic on Dodge Street; Burlington Memorial Hospital;
o Just north of Burlington: the commercial area around Walmart on STH 83.
Seniors and people with disabilities may need special travel training to teach people how to use transit.
7. What is the extent of need for transportation service between western Racine County and the City of Racine? Which highway serves as the primary travel corridor—STH 20 or STH 11?
STH 11 is the primary travel corridor.
8. What do you think about the idea of commuter bus service along Highway 36 between Burlington and Milwaukee? Who do you think would use such a service, if it were implemented?
The STH 36 corridor could be a good commuter route. It could also provide transportation for medical trips to St. Lukes Hospital and Froedert Hospital.
A-6
Appendix A-3
RECORD OF DISCUSSION GROUP WITH TRANSIT USERS IN THE CITY OF RACINE
DATE: Monday, September 28, 2009 1-3 p.m. PLACE: Racine County Human Services Center
1717 Taylor Avenue, Racine, WI
FACILITATOR: Sonia Dubielzig, Senior Planner, SEWRPC
DISCUSSION GROUP MEMBERS: (Note: all the members of the discussion group were contacted and recruited by staff of the Racine County Department of Workforce Development. Most, if not all, were seeking employment at the time the discussion.)
Lora Bingen
Albert Cage, Jr.
Nander Hargrove
Donny Jones
Sherry Korolenko
Lewis Mendoza
Willie Woods
STAFF :
Albert A. Beck, Principal Planner, SEWRPC
Chris Reuwer, Racine County Mobility Manager, Racine County Workforce Development
QUESTIONS DISCUSSED BY THE GROUP, AND KEY COMMENTS ARISING OUT OF DISCUSSION (COMMENTS ARE ITALICIZED):
1. Let’s talk for a moment about getting around without a car in the Racine area. Think about all of the transportation services that are available for someone who doesn’t have a car or can’t use a car for whatever reason, including the City bus system, the Racine Yellow Cab, getting rides from volunteers, the commuter bus service that goes between Kenosha, Racine, and Milwaukee, and the Amtrak station in Sturtevant. Which services are most useful or helpful? Which services are not as helpful?
The Racine Yellow Cab is not able to respond to service requests within an hour. The taxi provider seems to avoid areas where crime is perceived to be a problem. The service provided is very inconsistent.
The bus system works well and is very helpful. However, hours are limited, especially on Sundays. Lack of holiday service is a hardship for people who wish to visit families.
The Wisconsin Coach Lines route between the City of Kenosha and Milwaukee County is very useful, and would benefit from more frequent service, especially in the midday and afternoon time periods. One more bus trip would be helpful.
It is hard to use Amtrak to get to and from Chicago because of the infrequent bus service at the Sturtevant train station.
A-7
2. Let’s talk about your personal experiences with these transportation services. Think back to when you had a hard time finding transportation for a trip you needed to make. Why was it hard to find transportation? Have you ever decided not to apply for certain jobs because you had no way to get to the jobs? Where were the jobs located? What were the shift hours?
Trips to UW-Parkside are hard to make because there is no transit service.
Trips to businesses in Renaissance Industrial Park and Grandview Industrial Park are hard to make because they are served very infrequently. Route 20 (which serves both those locations) should be adjusted to serve the shift times of the employers along the routes.
3. What kind of transportation services might work for the job locations and hours identified in the discussion? Vanpools? Extending existing bus routes? Longer service hours? What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of each?
A shuttle service to the business parks would have the advantage of being dependable and convenient, as long as the transfer times coincide with BUS transfer times.
Carpooling does not work because it is not dependable for every-day transportation.
Vanpools to business parks would work as long as the cost to join the vanpool was reasonable and the vanpool drivers were organized so that it was dependable for every-day transportation.
4. What is the extent of need for transportation service between eastern Racine County (that is, between the part of Racine County east of IH-94) and eastern Kenosha County? What about between eastern Racine County and southern Milwaukee County?
Need better service to connect with the Kenosha transit system at UW-Parkside
Need for service that would connect people to jobs in the Lakeview Corporate Park in the Village of Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County.
5. What is the extent of need for transportation between eastern Racine County and western Racine County?
People would take transportation to Union Grove to get to jobs and to the Veteran’s Administration services in the Union Grove area.
There are lots of jobs in the Burlington area. If there were a transportation service to Burlington, people would use it.
Discussion of Belle Urban System
6. Let’s talk about the Belle Urban System, the bus system in the City of Racine. Overall, what is your impression of the bus system? What things does the bus system do well? Where does the bus system fall short?
Overall, the bus service is good, other than the need for longer hours on the weekends and the service on Route Nos. 20, 27, and 86.
The staggered midday schedule, which has buses meeting in “pulses” at the transit center every 30 and 60 minutes during the off-peak hours, is hard to understand and use.
The design of Route No. 86 makes some of the destinations on that route very inconvenient to access.
Bus system customer service-related comments included the following observations: drivers are courteous, and the ones who deal with disrespectful students deserve appreciation. Sometimes no one picks up the phone at the transit system office to answer questions. Information about route detours due to construction should be posted at the downtown transit center, in the bus, and on the bus stop signs that are affected by the detours. A member of the discussion group complained (and Commission staff noticed one month later) that there were no English versions of the transit schedules and maps at the downtown Transit Center.
A-8
The lack of passenger shelters at bus stops is an inconvenience. The discussion group spent about 15 minutes discussing where shelters were needed. The following suggestions were provided regarding passenger shelters:
o Passenger shelters might not be necessary if the bus stop is located near a building with an awning. The transit system should look to place bus stops near buildings that have awnings.
o At least one participant felt strongly that if there is a shelter on one side of the street for a bus going in one direction, there should be a shelter on the other side of the street for the bus returning in the opposite direction. He gave the following two examples: on Main Street and 7th Street, the stop on the northbound side of the street has a shelter but the stop on the southbound side does not. Likewise, on Main Street and 10th Street (by Gateway Technical College), the stop on the northbound side of the street has a shelter but the stop on the southbound side does not.
Student overcrowding on buses is a problem, especially with when students are unruly. Route No. 3 apparently is particularly overcrowded.
There should be a “day pass” fare category for buying unlimited rides on the transit system for one day. This would be helpful for job seekers who have to go to many destinations. Because of the 60-minute headways on many routes, the time that transfers are valid should be extended from 1 hour to 90 minutes.
7. I’m going to ask you to help me make a list of the ways that you think the bus system could improve. Then I will to ask you to prioritize the improvements that you listed. Each person will get three stickers to vote on the improvements listed.
Improvements Number of “votes” (stickers)
Need more passenger shelters 4
Extend weekend and holiday service hours 4
Ensure that snow is removed from bus stops 2
Connections to business parks in the City of Kenosha and the Village of Pleasant Prairie 2
More frequent service to Grandview Industrial Park at IH 94 and
STH 20 and to Renaissance Industrial Park in the Village of Sturtevant 2
More buses to address student overcrowding 1
Improve customers service/phone service/information about detours 1
Provide transit service to Union Grove and Western Racine County 1
Change midday frequency (30 and 60 minutes) to be more uniform 1
Provide a wider variety of fares (all-day unlimited pass, or weekly pass) 1
Extend the length of time that a transfer is valid (currently 1 hour) to 90 minutes 1
Provide transit service to UW-Parkside 1
Appendix B
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2009, REGARDING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2012-2016
(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix B-1
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVEDBY MAIL, E-MAIL, OR ONLINE COMMENT FORM
B-1
B-2
Appendix B-2
WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
B-3
B-4
B-5
Appendix B-3
COMMENTS FROM INTERACTIVE BOARDS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS At the public meetings, two interactive display boards were used to gather further public input on potential service improvements or changes in eastern Racine County, as well as input on potential new services in western Racine County. Preferences for Potential Service Improvements or New Services. One board showed a list of potential service improvements for eastern Racine County, such as “More bus shelters” or “Extend routes to more areas outside the City”. For western Racine County, the board showed a list of potential new services, such as “Commuter route to City of Racine” or “Vanpooling or ridesharing program”. Interested individuals were given three stickers to indicate their preference for the potential service improvements or new services. The board also had blank spaces at the bottom, which allowed individuals to write in their own ideas for potential service improvements or new services, although no additional items were written in during the meetings. Regional Planning Commission staff counted the number of stickers placed beside each potential service improvement or new service. The chart on the following page displays the preferences of meeting attendees for potential service improvements or new services. Racine County Map Showing Areas of Concern. The other interactive display board showed a map of Racine County, with the Belle Urban System routes and intercity passenger rail and bus routes. Interested individuals were given numbered pushpins, which they placed in the map at a point where they had a specific problem or concern with services. They then wrote their comment on a comment form showing the pin number on the top right-hand side. The map on page B-24 displays the location of each of the pushpins from the public informational meetings and the number of the comment. The numbered comments follow the map.
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
6
7
2
2
3
3
4
5
7
8
8
9
12
12
16
16
17
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Service to Waukesha County
Service to Walworth County
Service to Kenosha County
Taxi service for all of Racine County west of IH 94
Shuttle serving commercial areas, elderly & low-income housing, and social service agencies in Burlington area
Commuter route to southern Milwaukee County
Taxi service for Burlington/Waterford/Rochester area
Vanpooling or ridesharing program
Commuter route to City of Racine
Commuter route to downtown Milwaukee
Reduce travel time for long trips
Service to employment centers in Oak Creek and Franklin
Provide BUS service on holidays
New route via STH 31 (Green Bay Road) to major employment and activity centers on Kenosha's west side
Add BUS service hours on weekends
Improve express bus service to downtown Kenosha
Allow short deviations from BUS routes to pick up/drop off passengers on request
More frequent service to IH 94 and STH 20 interchange
More frequent service during evenings and weekends
Provide taxi service
Change BUS midday service frequency to 30 minutes
Vanpooling or ridesharing program
Extend routes to more areas outside the City
Provide service to UW-Parkside
More bus shelters
Number of Stickers Placed on Improvement
PREFERENCES OF MEETING ATTENDEES FOR POTENTIAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS OR NEW SERVICES AT PUBLIC MEETINGS HELD OCTOBER 27 TO NOVEMBER 4, 2009
Eastern Racine County
Western Racine County
B-6
B-7
B-8
Pin 1 Pin 3
Pin 2 Pin 4
B-9
Pin 5 Pin 7
Pin 6 Pin 8
B-10
Pin 9 Pin 11
Pin 10 Pin 12
B-11
Pin 13
B-12
Appendix B-4
ORAL COMMENTS PRESENTED TO COURT REPORTERS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix C
ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS HELD OCTOBER 27 AND 28, AND NOVEMBER 4, 2009
(This page intentionally left blank)
C-1
(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix D
COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS HELD IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2009 AND
SUMMARY MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED AT THOSE MEETINGS
(This page intentionally left blank)
D-1
Appendix D-1
PAID NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS
October 15, 2009
October 15, 2009
October 19, 2009
Burlington Press
Insider News
Racine Journal Times
The
D-2
Appendix D-2
PRESS RELEASE AND LIST OF MEDIA OUTLETS
RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC
TRANSIT PLAN: 2011-2015
NEWSLETTER 1 OCTOBER 2009
day off-peak periods, evenings, and weekends. Adultspay a cash fare of $1.50, or $1.25 after 7:00 p.m. Elderlyand disabled individuals pay $0.75, and youth pay $1.25.
The BUS also provides Dial-A-Ride paratransit service(DART) for disabled individuals who are unable to usethe fixed-route bus service, for trips made within three-quarters of a mile of a BUS route. DART is availableduring the same hours as the BUS fixed-route service.The fare for DART is $2.50.
From 2004 to 2008, BUS total annual revenue vehiclehours of service were cut by about 4 percent, and the
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional PlanningCommission (SEWRPC), at the request of the City ofRacine and Racine County, is preparing a short-rangepublic transit service plan for Racine County for 2011-2015. This study, which is scheduled for completion inlate 2010, will perform the following functions:
Evaluate the performance of the City of RacineBelle Urban System (BUS);
Evaluate other public and human services transpor-tation provided in Racine County;
Identify the unmet transit travel needs for tripswithin Racine County and to/from other counties;
Recommend alternative transit service improve-ments for the BUS that address the performanceevaluation, including unmet transit service needs;
Recommend alternative transit service improve-ments for the remainder of the County outside theBUS service area, to address unmet transit needs;
Prepare a short-range plan recommending modifi-cations, improvements, and capital projects for allpublic transit services in Racine County, to guideannual transit budgeting and programming; and
Estimate the financial requirements for public transitservices in the County, compare to existing andprojected available funding, identify funding short-falls, and consider how to address those shortfalls.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES
City of Racine Belle Urban System (BUS)The BUS operates nine regular bus routes, severalpeak-hour tripper routes serving schools, and onerubber-tired trolley bus in the downtown area. Of thenine regular routes, eight pass through the RacineMetro Transit Center located on State Street, wherebuses meet at the Center on a “pulse” schedule tofacilitate transfers between routes. The regular routesoperate between 5:30 a.m. and midnight on weekdays,between 5:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on Saturdays, andbetween 9:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. Mostbuses arrive every 30 minutes during weekday peakperiods, and between 30 and 60 minutes during week-
The Racine County Public Transit Plan is being developed
under the guidance of a Workgroup formed specifically for
this study. Representatives from all units of government in
Racine County and a wide variety of agencies and popula-
tions with an interest in transportation in the County have
been invited to participate in the Workgroup. A list of the
agencies and organizations can be found on the Racine
County Transit Plan Summary Brochure or the website:
www.sewrpc.org/racinetransitplan
RACINE COUNTY TRANSITPLAN WORKGROUP
TROLLEY
ROUTE NO. 86
ROUTE NO. 30
ROUTE NO. 27
ROUTE NO. 20
ROUTE NO. 7
ROUTE NO. 5
ROUTE NO. 4
ROUTE NO. 3
ROUTE NO. 2
ROUTE NO. 1
CONNECTINGTRANSIT SERVICES
PASSENGER TERMINAL
BUS ROUTES
TRAIN
BUS
AMTRAK
WISCONSIN COACHLINES/COACH USA
COACH USA
ROUTES OF THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEMAND CONNECTING TRANSIT SERVICES: 2009
Source: SEWRPC.
Appendix D-3 RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN NEWLETTER: EDITION 1, OCTOBER 2009
D-3
� Travel surveys conducted by the Commissionindicate that between 1991 and 2001, averageweekday total person travel between the Countyand areas outside the County increased by 32,900trips, or about 22 percent. Map 2 shows the patternand distribution of these trips.
The study includes a detailed evaluation of the existingCity of Racine BUS service using the performancemeasures identified in the transit system objectives andstandards (see box), as well as an identification ofunmet transit travel needs in both the eastern andwestern parts of the County.
On a systemwide basis, the BUS provides good-to-excellent coverage of concentrations of population,employment, and activity centers east of IH 94.
The BUS system is about average when compared to“peer” transit systems in Wisconsin and nationallywith respect to ridership, service levels, and operatingcosts. In general, the BUS provides a lot of service forthe size of its service population, resulting in higherservice effectiveness, but lower service efficiency.
EVALUATION OFTRANSIT SYSTEMAND IDENTIFICATION OFUNMET NEEDS
Racine BUS Evaluation Findings
adult cash fare increased from $1.25 to $1.50 per trip.Despite this, ridership increased from 1.1 million to 1.2million revenue passengers, or about 10 percent.
The total annual expenditures for BUS transit systemoperations and capital projects average about $8.77million. Of this amount, operating revenue (mostlyfares) covers an average of $1.22 million. The remain-ing $7.55 million in annual average expenditures isfunded through Federal and state transit-assistanceprograms and local property taxes, of which the City ofRacine provides about $1.41 million.
Other transit services for the general public whichoperate in Racine County include:
A commuter-oriented express bus operated byWisconsin Coach Lines, Inc./Coach USA betweendowntown Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha.
Intercity bus routes operated by Coach USAbetweenMilwaukee and Chicago, with a stop at IH 94 andSTH 20.
Intercity passenger train operated by Amtrakbetween Milwaukee and Chicago, with a stop in theVillage of Sturtevant.
Commission staff gathered information on historic andcurrent population, employment, land use, and travelpatterns in Racine County. Key findings include:
East of IH 94, the City of Racine has the highest con-centrations of population, transit-dependent groups,and major shopping, education, medical, andgovernment centers. West of IH 94, these concentra-tions are mostly found in the Burlington, Waterford-Rochester, and Union Grove areas.
The highest employment concentrations are in theCity of Racine; however, most of the increase inemployment in the County since 1970 has occurredoutside the City, along WashingtonAvenue (STH 20)and Durand Avenue (STH 11) in Mt. Pleasant andSturtevant, as well as in Burlington.
Racine County Human Services DepartmentRacine County contracts with private, for-profitcompanies to provide door-to-door transportation totransportation handicapped persons within RacineCounty outside the service area for the City’s DARTparatransit service. The County also contracts with theGoodwill Industries and the Racine County Oppor-tunity Center to provide subscription transportation fordevelopmentally disabled individuals participating intraining and employment programs.
Other Public Transit Services
LAND USEAND TRAVELPATTERNS
�
�
�
�
�
5,2
00
5,2
00
5,9
00
5,9
00
14,10014,100
7,6007,600
16,3
00
16,3
00
20
,40
02
0,4
00
3,0003,000
3,3003,300
4,7
00
4,7
00 1
1,3
00
11
,30
0
6,3
00
6,3
00
4,6
00
4,6
004,8
00
4,8
00
3,0
00
3,0
00
4,4
00
4,4
00
2,6002,600
2,3002,3003
,60
03
,60
0
1,6
00
1,6
00
6,6006,600
2,3002,300
6,5
00
6,5
00
2,7
00
2,7
00
1,9
00
1,9
00
4,2
00
4,2
00
11,3
00
11,3
002
,40
02
,40
0
2,3002,300
1,7001,700
1,8
00
1,8
00
1,5
00
1,5
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,5
00
2,5
00
1,5
00
1,5
00
1,70
0
1,70
0
Source: SEWRPC.
NOTE:
LEGEND
ANALYSIS AREABOUNDARY
DIRECTION OFTRIP TRAVELFROM “HOME” TO“NON-HOME”DESTINATION(SEE NOTE)
TRIPS ARE DISPLAYED BY THE NUMBER OF TRIPS MADE BY RESIDENTS OFEACH ANALYSIS AREA LEAVING FROM AND RETURNING TO THE ANALYSISAREA. FOR EXAMPLE, A CITY OF RACINE RESIDENT COMMUTING FROMEASTERN RACINE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF KENOSHA FOR WORK ANDRETURNING HOME AFTER WORK IS COUNTED TWICE IN THE ARROW FROMEASTERN RACINE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF KENOSHA. TOTAL TRAVELBETWEENANALYSISAREAS LESS THAN 1,500 TRIPS PER DAY IS NOT SHOWN.
APPROXIMATELY 400,400 TRIPS PER DAY AND 66,100 TRIPS PER DAY WEREMADE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE EASTERN AND WESTERN PORTIONS OF RACINECOUNTY, RESPECTIVELY.
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE WEEKDAYPERSON TRIPS BETWEEN RACINE COUNTY
AND SURROUNDING AREAS: 2001
D-4
mance evaluation; from facilitated discussions withhuman services agencies, employers, and BUS users;and from
A need to improve BUS service to some areas inSturtevant and Mt. Pleasant by extending routes orincreasing service frequency;
A need to connect transit services in KenoshaCounty, possibly via UW-Parkside and/or via GreenBay Road (STH 31).
A need to add BUS service on holidays, and toextend BUS service hours on weekends;
Aneed for more bus shelters;
A taxi service in the City of Racine with reasonableresponse times;
Affordable, wheelchair accessible service, withouteligibility restrictions, such as subsidized taxi and/orshuttle routes, especially in the Burlington-Rochester-Wind Lake area.
Ser ork and medical trips to and fromadjacent counties, including Milwaukee, Kenosha,Walworth, and Waukesha Counties.
A need to consider work-related transportationservices that, although currently not in demand dueto the weak economy, may be needed by the end ofthe five-year planning period.
the 2008 Public Transit-Human ServicesTransportation Coordination Plan for Racine County.
vice for w
Eastern Racine County
Western Racine County
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
map on this page graphically displays the resultingtransit need levels in terms of high, moderate, and lowtransit needs throughout the County. There are hightransit needs throughout the City of Racine and parts ofMt. Pleasant and Sturtevant. West of IH 94, UnionGrove and Burlington also have areas with high transitneeds.
The following unmet transit travel needs for RacineCounty residents are derived from the BUS perfor-
Summary of Unmet Transit Travel Needs
The route-by-route evaluationidentified Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 asthe best-performing routes in thesystem. Routes 5, 20, 27, and 86 arethe worst-performing routes in thesystem, and have many segmentswith low passenger activity. Routingand service changes to these routesshould be explored.
The evaluation also found that transittravel times are significantly longerthan automobile times for some trips.Long transit travel times are causedby indirect route alignments on someroutes, or the need to make severaltransfers to complete a trip by bus.
Commission staff developed a transitneeds index to identify the areas ofgreatest potential transit needs inRacine County, using U.S. Censusblock group population data. The
Transit Needs IndexNOTE:
TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX FOR RACINE COUNTY: 2000
HIGH (18 TO 24)
MODERATE (12 TO 17)
LOW (4 TO 11)
TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX LEVEL
THE TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX IS CALCULATED BY RANKING CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS BASED ON THEPERCENT OF POPULATION OR HOUSEHOLDS IN FOUR CATEGORIES: ELDERLY PERSONS, PERSONS INLOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, DISABLED PERSONS, AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO VEHICLE AVAILABLE.EACH RANKED BLOCK GROUP IS ASSIGNED A SCORE FROM 1 TO 6, IN EACH CATEGORY, WITH A 1 FORTHE LOWEST PERCENTAGESANDA6 FOR THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES. THE TRANSIT NEED INDEX ISEQUALTO THE SUM OF THE SCORES FORALLFOUR CATEGORIES.
PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICEOBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS
The following transit service objectives provide a basisfor measuring the performance of the transit system,identifying unmet transit service needs, and designingand recommending improvements:
1. The public transit system should effectively serve theexisting land use pattern and support the implementa-tion of planned land uses, meeting the demand andneed for transit services, and particularly the needs ofthe transit-dependentpopulation;
2. The transit system should promote effective utilizationof transit service and operate service that is reliableand provides for convenience and comfort;
3. The public transit system should be economical andefficient, meeting all other objectives at the lowestpossible cost.
5,2
00
5,9
00
14,100
7,600
16,3
00
20
,40
0
3,0003,300
4,7
00 1
1,3
00
6,3
00
4,6
004,8
00
3,0
00
4,4
00
2,600
2,3003,6
00
1,6
00
6,600
2,300
6,5
00
2,7
00
1,9
00
4,2
00
11,3
002
,40
0
2,300
1,700
1,8
00
1,5
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,5
00
1,5
00
1,70
0
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
D-5
You are invited to attend one of three upcoming publicinformational meetings on the Racine County PublicTransit Plan.At the meetings, you can learn more aboutthe plan, discuss it with Southeastern WisconsinRegional Planning Commission staff, and comment onthe work performed to date.
If you are unable to attend one of the meetings, you canvisit the plan website to view the informationpresented, request a briefing by project staff, or com-ment on the project. You can submit written commentsvia mail, e-mail, or fax through November 20, 2009.
Website:E-mail:Fax: (262) 547-1103Mail: P.O. Box 1607, Waukesha, WI 53187
Kenneth R.Yunker, Executive DirectorSoutheasternWisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission(262) 547-6721
Sonia Dubielzig, Senior PlannerSoutheasternWisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission
FOR MORE INFORMATION
(262) 547-6721
www.sewrpc.org/[email protected]
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
The public meetings are in an “open house” format,allowing you to attend at any time during the two-hour timeframe for each meeting. A shortpresentation will be made at 5:45 pm at eachmeeting. Attendees will have the opportunity toleave written comments, or speak to a courtreporter or Commission staff for oral comments.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 4:30-6:30 pmRacine Railroad Depot1409 State Street, Racine
Burlington Town Hall32288 Bushnell Road, Burlington
Ives Grove Office Complex14200 Washington Avenue, Sturtevant
Wednesday, October 28, 2009, 4:30-6:30 pm
Wednesday, November 4, 2009, 5:00-7:00 pm
All meeting locations are handicapped-accessible. Personswith special needs are asked to contact the SEWRPC office at(262) 547-6721 a minimum of 72 hours before the meetings sothat appropriate arrangements can be made regarding accessor mobility, review or interpretation of materials, activeparticipation, or submission of comments.
FirstClassMail
U.S.POSTAGE
PAID
PERMITNO.645
SOUTHEASTERNWISCONSINREGIONALPLANNINGCOMMISSION
W239N1812ROCKWOODDRIVEPOBOX1607WAUKESHA,WISCONSIN53187-1607
D-6
SUMMARY BROCHURE FEBRUARY 2009
·KE
NO
SHA·MILWAUKEE·OZAU
KE
E·W
AU
KE
SHA·W
ASHINGTON·WALWORTH·R
AC
INE
SOUTHEASTERN
WISCONSIN
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION
RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC
TRANSIT PLAN: 2010-2014
At the request of the City and County of Racine, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) ispreparing a short-range public transit service plan for Racine County covering the years 2010-2014. This study will:
Evaluate in-depth the City of Racine Belle Urban System (BUS).
Recommend transit service and capital improvements for the City bus system.
Identify and evaluate all other existing public and human services transportation provided in Racine County.
Identify the unmet transit travel needs for resident trips within Racine County and to/from other counties.
Recommend actions to coordinate existing transportation services or initiate needed new transit services.
More detail is given below as this brochure provides an overview of the study, which will be updated periodically. TheCommission seeks to provide information about this effort and its other planning programs, as well as obtain the involvementof interested persons. A website has been established with comprehensive information regarding the study:
. Please see the reverse side of this brochure for more information about becominginvolved.
The short-range transit planning study and the preparation of a five-year plan for improving public transit in Racine County willprovide:
for Racine County residents;
, including the routes and service operated by theCity of Racine and the Racine County Human Services Department, to review their existing performance and to identifyareas of good and poor performance;
that address the performanceevaluation, including the unmet transit service needs;
outside the BUSservice area, to address the unmet transit needs;
modifications, improvements, and capital projects needed for all public transitservices in Racine County, thereby guiding annual transit budgeting and capital and operations programming; and
for all public transit services in the County, and comparison toexisting and projected available funding, identifying any funding shortfalls, and considering alternatives to addressthose shortfalls.
The year 2035 long-range regional transportation system plan for Southeastern Wisconsin recommends significantexpansion of transit service—local, express, and rapid service—in the Racine urbanized area as well as other parts of theRegion (see map). That plan will be amended to reflect the public transit recommendations made in the Racine County PublicTransit Plan: 2010-2014.
The Racine County Transit Plan is being developed under the guidance of a workgroup formed specifically for this study. TheWorkgroup will be responsible for proposing transit improvements to Racine County, the City of Racine, and SEWRPC, aftercareful study and evaluation. In pursuing the points above, the Workgroup will help identify possible City of Racine BUSimprovements, possible actions for coordinating public transit and human services transportation in Racine County, andpotential new public services to address the identified need west of IH-94. Representatives from all units of government inRacine County and a wide variety of agencies and populations with an interest in transportation in the County have beeninvited to participate in the Workgroup (see box).
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
STUDY PURPOSE
STUDY GUIDANCE
Assessment of existing unmet transit travel needs
Rigorous evaluation of existing transit services in the County
Identification of alternative transit service improvements for Racine BUS routes
Identification of alternative transit service improvements for the remainder of the County
A short-range plan recommending
Estimate of short-term financial requirements
www.sewrpc.org/racinetransitplan
Appendix D-4 RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN SUMMARY BROCHURE: FEBRUARY 2009
D-7
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
FOR MORE INFORMATION
The Regional Planning Commission encourages public involvement. It will work throughout the study to inform units ofgovernment and the general public about plan development, and will work to obtain input on transit service needs, problems,and alternative solutions. We will attempt to incorporate the input received from all sources.
In addition to the Workgroup, the following will be used:
— —serves as a source of comprehensive information. It includesnotifications of upcoming meetings, summaries of work progress, and a means to submit comments. Draft planchapters and workgroup agendas, minutes, and materials will be posted as available.
—will be produced and distributed, including at public meetings and on thewebsite.
—will be held at various locations in Racine County in two series: the first following the collection andanalysis of inventory information and before the design and evaluation of alternatives plans; and the second followingthe evaluation of alternative plans.
—are available to provide information and receive comments from all interestedpersons, community and other groups, and units of government.
—to notify and inform citizens and obtain their input. Focused outreach efforts willbe made to reach minority communities as well as low-income neighborhoods.
SEWRPC Website:E-mail:Phone (262) 547-6721Fax: (262) 547-1103
of individuals and organizations interested in receiving summary information. If you wouldlike to directly receive future such materials, please contact us.
� A website
Summary brochures and other materials
Public meetings
Briefings by Commission staff
Other opportunities will be sought
Amailing list has been developed
�
�
�
�
www.sewrpc.org/racinetransitplan
www.sewrpc.org/[email protected]
Mail: W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive
Waukesha, WI 53187 - 1607P. O. Box 1607
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
0
1
5
2
10
3
15
4
20
5
25
6 MILES
30 35 40,000 FEET
RAPID/EXPRESS ROUTE
RAPID BUS ROUTE -FREEWAY PORTION
RAPID BUS ROUTE -NONFREEWAY PORTION
EXPRESS BUS ROUTE
TRANSIT STATIONS
WITH PARKING
WITHOUT PARKING
SERVICE AREA
WALK ACCESSTRANSITSERVICE AREA
COMMUTER RAIL ROUTE
PUBLIC TRANSIT ELEMENT OF THE RECOMMENDEDREGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN: YEAR 2035
Source: SEWRPC.
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVITED TO PARTICIPATEIN THE RACINE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN WORK GROUP
Racine County GovernmentCounty Executive’s OfficeHealth and HumanDevelopment Committee
Human ServicesDepartment
Department of Planningand Development
Workforce Development
Center
Business OrganizationsRacine Area Manufacturers and
Commerce
Greater Union Grove AreaChamber of Commerce
Waterford Area Chamber of
CommerceBurlington Chamber of CommerceRacine County Economic
Development Corporation
Educational Institutions withStudent Transportation Needs
Burlington Area School District
Racine Unified School DistrictUnion Grove High School DistrictWater ford Union High School
District
Non-Profit OrganizationsAlliance on Mental Illness ofRacine County
American Red Cross
Careers Industries, Inc.First Choice Pre-ApprenticeJobs Training
Hispanic RoundtableLove, Inc.Racine County OpportunityCenter
Racine Hispanic Business andProfessionals Organization
Racine Interfaith Coalition
Society’s Assets, Inc.Urban League of Racine andKenosha
Transit Service Providers
First Transit, Inc.Racine Belle Urban System
City of Racine GovernmentMayor’s OfficeDepartment of CityDevelopment
Transportation Department
Transit and ParkingCommission
Other GovernmentCity of BurlingtonVillage of CaledoniaVillage of Mt. PleasantVillage of Rochester
Village of SturtevantVillage of Union GroveVillage of WaterfordVillage of Wind Point
Town of BurlingtonTown of DoverTown of NorwayTown of RaymondTown of Waterford
Town of YorkvilleWisconsin Department ofTransportation
U. S. Department ofTransportation, FederalTransit Administration
RACINECOUNTY
D-8
D-9
Appendix D-5
PRESENTATIONS GIVEN AT PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
D-15
Introduction to Racine County
Public Transit Plan
The study will perform the following functions:
Evaluate the performance of the City of Racine Belle Urban
System (BUS).
Evaluate other public and human services transportation
provided in Racine County.
Identify the unmet transit travel needs for trips within Racine
County and to/from other counties.
Recommend alternative transit service improvements for the
BUS that address the evaluation and unmet needs.
Recommend alternative transit service improvements for the
remainder of the County outside the BUS service area.
Prepare a short-range (5-year) plan of service improvements
and expansion.
�
�
�
�
�
�
Who is preparing the plan?
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) has been asked by Racine County and the City of
Racine to develop the plan. The Commission is preparing the plan
together with staff from the BUS and the Racine County
Department of Planning and Development.
D-16
Appendix D-6 DISPLAY BOARDS AT PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
�
�
�
The Racine County Transit Plan is being developed
under the guidance of a Workgroup formed specifically
for this study.
Representatives from all units of government in Racine
County and a wide variety of agencies and populations
with an interest in transportation in the County have
been invited to participate in the Workgroup.
The Workgroup is responsible for proposing transit
improvements to Racine County, the City of Racine, and
SEWRPC, after careful study and evaluation.
Racine County Transit Plan Workgroup
Agencies and Organizations Invited toParticipate in Workgroup
Transit Service Providers
Educational Institutions with
Student Transportation Needs
First Transit, Inc.
Racine Belle Urban System
Burlington Area School District
Racine Unified School District
Union Grove High School
District
Waterford Union High School
District
Racine County Government
City of Racine Government
Other Government Business Organizations
Non-Profit Organizations
County Executive's Office
Health and Human
Development Committee
Human Services
Department
Department of Planning and
Development
Workforce Development
Center
Mayor's Office
Department of City
Development
Transportation Department
Transit and Parking
Commission
City of Burlington
Village of Caledonia
Village of Mt. Pleasant
Village of Rochester
Village of Sturtevant
Village of Union Grove
Village of Waterford
Village of Wind Point
Town of Burlington
Town of Dover
Town of Norway
Town of Raymond
Town of Waterford
Town of Yorkville
Wisconsin Department of
Transportation
U. S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration
Racine Area Manufacturers
and Commerce
Greater Union Grove Area
Chamber of Commerce
Waterford Area Chamber of
Commerce
Burlington Chamber of
Commerce
Racine County Economic
Development Corporation
Alliance on Mental Illness of
Racine County
American Red Cross
Careers Industries, Inc.
First Choice Pre-Apprentice
Jobs Training
Hispanic Roundtable
Love, Inc.
Racine County Opportunity
Center
Racine Hispanic Business and
Professionals Organization
Racine Interfaith Coalition
Society's Assets, Inc.
Urban League of Racine and
Kenosha
D-17
Steps in the Plan Process
Steps Completed to Date
� Inventory of population, employment, land use, and travel
patterns in Racine County and surrounding counties
Review of existing transit services and trends in operation
Development of transit objectives and standards to
evaluate system performance
Assessment of transit system and route performance
Comparison of BUS performance to similar transit
systems
Facilitated discussions with human services agencies,
employers, and BUS users
Initial identification of unmet transit service needs
�
�
�
�
�
�
Next Steps
� Obtain public opinion on transit system performance,
unmet needs, and service improvement ideas (Winter
2009-2010)
Finalize identification of unmet transit service needs
(
Develop alternative transit service improvement plans,
including costs of different plans (Spring
Second series of public meetings to obtain additional
public input on service improvement plans
Develop final recommended transit service improvement
plan
�
�
�
�
Winter 2009-2010)
2010)
(Spring 2010)
(Mid-2010)
D-18
Existing Transit Services
INTERCITY PASSENGER TERMINAL
PASSENGER RAILROAD LINE
ONE-QUARTER MILE
WALK DISTANCE
FROM BUS ROUTES
INTERCITY BUS ROUTE
ROUTE NO. 2
ROUTE NO. 1
ROUTE NO. 3
ROUTE NO. 4
ROUTE NO. 5
BELLE URBAN SYSTEM BUS ROUTE
ROUTE NO. 7
TROLLEY
ROUTE NO. 86
TRAIN
ROUTE NO. 30
ROUTE NO. 27
ROUTE NO. 20
BUS
AMTRAK
WISCONSIN COACH LINES/COACH USA
COACH USA
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN RACINE COUNTY: 2009
Other Transit ServicesOther transit services for the general public which
operate within Racine County include:
Wisconsin Coach Lines, Inc./Coach USA
operates a commuter-oriented express-bus
route between Milwaukee, Racine, and
Kenosha, with several intermediate stops in
Racine County.
Coach USA operates intercity bus routes
between Milwaukee and Chicago, with a stop
along IH 94.
Amtrak intercity passenger train service runs
between Milwaukee and Chicago with a stop in
the Village of Sturtevant.
�
�
�
Racine County Human Services DepartmentThe Racine County Human Services Department
administers two transportation programs for special
population groups in the County.
Door-to-door service for transportation-
handicapped individuals for trips outside the
service area for the City’s DART paratransit
service. The County contracts with First
Transit, Inc., and Express Transportation of
Wisconsin to provide the service.
Fixed-route, subscription transportation
services to developmentally-disabled
individuals participating in training and
employment programs. The County contracts
with a private bus company--First Transit, Inc.--
and two private nonprofit agencies--the Racine
County Opportunity Center and Goodwill
Industries--to transport participants in these
programs.
�
�
City of Racine Belle Urban System (BUS)BUS facilities and equipment are owned by the City,
which contracts with a private firm, Professional Transit
Management, Inc., to oversee the day-to-day operation
of the transit system.
The system provides fixed-route bus service over 9
regular routes, several school tripper routes, and the
rubber-tire Lakefront Trolley circulator.
Most routes meet on a “pulse” schedule at the Racine
Metro Transit Center on State Street to facilitate
transfers between routes.
Service hours and service frequency
Weekdays: 5:30 a.m.-midnight; every 30-60
minutes
Saturdays: 5:30 a.m.-11:00 p.m.; every 45
minutes
Sundays: 9:30 a.m.-7:00 p.m.; every 45 minutes
Fares
Adult cash fare: $1.50, $1.25 after 7:00 p.m.
Elderly and disabled cash fare: $0.75
Youth cash fare: $1.25; special fares for Racine
Unified School District students
The BUS also provides Dial-A-Ride paratransit service
(DART) for disabled individuals who are unable to use
the fixed-route bus service.
For trips made within three-quarters of a mile of a
BUS route
Same hours as the fixed-route bus service
Requires reservation the day before service is
needed
Fare is $2.50
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
D-19
Belle Urban System Historic Ridership
and Service Levels
AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP ON THE ROUTESOF THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM: OCTOBER 2006
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1 2 3 4 5 7 20 27 86
BUS ROUTE
DA
ILY
BO
AR
DIN
G P
AS
SE
NG
ER
S
WEEKDAYS SATURDAYS SUNDAYS
�
�
Despite the recent service cuts and fare increase, BUS ridership increased from 1.1
million to 1.2 million revenue passengers from 2004 to 2008, or by about 10 percent.
The lower figure shows that Route Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7 account for the majority of the daily
ridership on the system. In addition, weekday ridership is more than double that of
Saturday ridership and more than 5 times that of Sunday ridership.
Source: City of Racine Department of Transportation and SEWRPC.
HISTORIC RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE LEVELSON THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM: 1975-2007
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007
YEAR
ANNUAL REVENUE
PASSENGERS
REVENUE VEHICLE MILES
REVENUE VEHICLE HOURSO
PE
RATIN
GS
TATIS
TIC
INM
ILLIO
NS
�
�
�
�
About 39 percent of the travel made
on the transit system is to and from
work, 22 percent to and from school,
10 percent for shopping, and the
other 21 percent for medical, social,
recreational, and other purposes.
As shown in the top figure to the
right, ridership on the Belle Urban
System (BUS) increased steadily in
each year from 1976 through 1981
as the City of Racine implemented
an entirely new transit system and
reduced passenger fares.
from 1982
through 2004 including: six fare
increases; decreased use of the
system to provide student
transportation services for the
school district; a severe economic
recession and high unemployment
levels; and steady decreases in
gasoline prices and increases in
automobile availability which
resulted in increased automobile
use.
From 2004 to 2008, BUS total
annual revenue vehicle hours of
service were cut by about 4 percent,
and the adult cash fare increased
from $1.25 to $1.50 per trip.
Several factors have contributed to
the general decline of ridership on
the transit system
D-20
Belle Urban System Operating and
Capital Costs
�
�
�
�
Total operating expenses for the transit system have risen since the system began
public operation in 1975. Actual operating expenses and deficits for the system
increased in the 1970s and 1980s as needed improvements were made to the bus
system. High fuel prices and declining system ridership have contributed to recent cost
increases, resulting in the major service cuts that were implemented in 2004. Costs
have fluctuated since 2004.
Operating revenues have grown somewhat since 1975, reflecting the periodic fare
increases implemented by the City. In constant dollars, revenues have been flat and
reflect the declining ridership on the system. This has prevented any real growth in
revenue despite the increases in passenger fares. Operating revenues currently
account for about 20 percent of annual operating expenses for the system.
The transit system is heavily dependent on Federal and State funding. About 60
percent of are provided by
About 80 percent of capital expenditures are funded through Federal transit capital
assistance programs, and the remaining 20 percent come from the City of Racine.
annual system operating expenses these sources.
OPERATING
REVENUE
$1,390,400
20%
FEDERALFUNDS
$2,259,300
32%
STATE FUNDS
$1,753,200
25%
LOCALFUNDS
$1,574,000
23%
OPERATING
REVENUE
1,210,200
18%
FEDERALFUNDS
2,032,700
30%STATE FUNDS
2,003,100
30%
LOCALFUNDS
$1,438,000
22%
2003 2007
DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSESFOR THE BY FUNDING SOURCE: 2003 AND 2007BELLE URBAN SYSTEM
Source: City of Racine Department of Transportation and SEWRPC.
ACTUAL DOLLARS
.0
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
DO
LL
AR
S I
N M
ILL
ION
S
YEAR
.0
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
DO
LLA
RS
IN
MIL
LIO
NS
YEAROPERATING REVENUES OPERATING ASSISTANCEOPERATING EXPENSES
Source: City of Racine Department of Transportation and SEWRPC.
BELLE URBAN SYSTEM ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES,OPERATING REVENUES, AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE: 1975-2007
CONSTANT 1975 DOLLARS
D-21
Major Activity Centers and
Transit-Supportive Areas
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 4 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY OF 4 OR MORE JOBS PER ACRE
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS IN RACINE COUNTY: 2000
MAJOR COMMERCIAL AREA
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
NONEMPLOYMENT CENTER
ACTIVITY CENTERS
MAJOR OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL PARK/ AREA
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS IN RACINE COUNTY: 2009
�
�
Most major activity centers in Racine County are in the City of Racine proper, with a
small number located in the Village of Sturtevant and the Village of Mt. Pleasant. In
the western portion of the County, the City of Burlington and the Villages of
Rochester, Union Grove, and Waterford contain most of the activity centers.
Areas with transit-supportive residential densities (at least four dwelling units per
acre) and/or employment densities (at least four jobs per acre) can be found primarily
in the portions of the City of Racine located east of Green Bay Road, as well as in a
small number of areas west of Green Bay Road in the Villages of Mt. Pleasant and
Sturtevant. Some portions of western Racine County, including in the Burlington and
Union Grove areas, also have transit-supportive residential or employment densities.
Source: SEWRPC.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
D-22
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
0
1
5
2
10
3
15
4
20
5
25
6 MILES
30 35 40,000 FEET
Source: SEWRPC
NOTE:
LEGEND
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
DIRECTION OF TRIP TRAVEL FROM “HOME” TO
“NON-HOME” DESTINATION (SEE NOTE)
TRIPS ARE DISPLAYED BY THE NUMBER OF TRIPS MADE BY
RESIDENTS OF EACH ANALYSIS AREA LEAVING FROM AND
RETURNING TO THE ANALYSIS AREA. FOR EXAMPLE, A CITY
OF RACINE RESIDENT COMMUTING FROM EASTERN
RACINE COUNTY TO THE CITY OF KENOSHAFOR WORKAND
RETURNING HOME AFTER WORK IS COUNTED TWICE IN
THE ARROW FROM EASTERN RACINE COUNTY TO THE CITY
OF KENOSHA. TOTAL TRAVEL BETWEEN ANALYSIS AREAS
LESS THAN 1,500 TRIPS PER DAY IS NOT SHOWN.
APPROXIMATELY 400,400 TRIPS PER DAY AND 66,100 TRIPS
PER DAY WERE MADE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE EASTERN AND
WESTERN PORTIONS OF RACINE COUNTY, RESPECTIVELY.
DISTRIBUTION OF AVERAGE WEEKDAY PERSON TRIPS BETWEEN RACINECOUNTY AND SURROUNDING AREAS: 2001
5,2
00
5,2
00
5,9
00
5,9
00
14,10014,100
7,6007,600
16,3
00
16,3
00
20
,40
02
0,4
00
3,0
00
3,0
00
3,3
00
3,3
00
4,7
00
4,7
00 1
1,3
00
11
,30
0
6,3
00
6,3
00
4,6
00
4,6
004,8
00
4,8
00
3,0
00
3,0
00
4,4
00
4,4
00
2,600
2,600
2,300
2,3003,6
00
3,6
00
1,6
00
1,6
00
6,6006,600
2,3002,300
6,5
00
6,5
00
2,7
00
2,7
00
1,9
00
1,9
00
4,2
00
4,2
00
11,3
00
11,3
00
2,4
00
2,4
00
2,3002,300
1,7
00
1,7
00
1,8
00
1,8
00
1,5
00
1,5
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,6
00
2,5
00
2,5
00
1,5
00
1,5
00
1,7
00
1,7
00
�
�
�
Travel surveys undertaken by the Regional Planning Commission indicate
that a majority (73 percent) of the person trips made by County residents
were made entirely within the County in 2001.
Average weekday total person trips increased from 652,500 to 695,300, or
by about 7 percent, from 1991 to 2001.
Over three-fourths of that 7 percent increase in person trips was due to the
increase in external trips made between Racine County and areas outside
the County. The number of external trips made by Racine County residents
increased by 32,900 trips, or by about 22 percent, between 1991 and 2001.
Travel Patterns
D-23
Public Transit Service
Objectives and Standards
The following transit service objectives provide a basis for
measuring the performance of the transit system, identifying
unmet transit service needs, and designing and recommending
improvements:
1.The public transit system should effectively serve the
existing land use pattern and support the implementation
of planned land uses, meeting the demand and need for
transit services, and particularly the needs of the
transit-dependent population;
2.The transit system should promote effective utilization of
transit service and operate service that is reliable and
provides for convenience and comfort;
3.The public transit system should be economical and
efficient, meeting all other objectives at the lowest
possible cost.
Each of the above transit service objectives is supported by a
planning principle and a set of standards intended to quantify the
achievement of each objective.
D-24
MAJOR COMMERCIAL AREA
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
NONEMPLOYMENT CENTER
ACTIVITY CENTERS
MAJOR OFFICE OR INDUSTRIAL PARK/ AREA
Source: SEWRPC.
SERVICE AREA FOR BUS ROUTE OPERATING FOR A FULL SERVICE
DAY ON WEEKDAYSSERVICE AREA FOR BUS ROUTE OPERATING FOR A FULL SERVICE
DAY ON WEEKDAYS
SERVICE AREA FOR BUS ROUTE OPERATING FOR A LESS THAN A
FULL SERVICE DAY ON WEEKDAYSSERVICE AREA FOR BUS ROUTE OPERATING FOR A LESS THAN A
FULL SERVICE DAY ON WEEKDAYS
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS WITHIN ANDOUTSIDE OF THE SERVICE AREA FOR THE
BELLE URBAN SYSTEM: 2009
AREA WITH TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 7 OR
MORE DWELLING UNITS PER RESIDENTIAL ACRE
BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY
AREA WITH TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE EMPLOYMENT DENSITY OF 4 OR
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS
Source: US Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS FORCONVENTIONAL FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICESWITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF THE 2009 SERVICE AREA
FOR THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM
�
�
�
The existing Belle Urban System (BUS) routes provide excellent
coverage of the current residential and employment concentrations
inside the City of Racine.
Outside the City, the BUS provided good coverage of most residential
and employment concentrations, although some new developments in
the Villages of Mt. Pleasant and Sturtevant that may have transit-
supportive residential or employment densities are not served.
The BUS also provides very good coverage of the major activity centers
and excellent coverage of residential concentrations of transit-
dependent population groups and the total minority population in the
portion of Racine County east of IH 94.
Evaluation of Belle Urban System:Coverage of Service Population,Employment, and Activity Centers
D-25
COMPARISON OF KEY INDICATORS OF RIDERSHIP AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE FOR THE BELLE URBANSYSTEM AND OTHER BUS SYSTEMS IN THE WISCONSIN AND NATIONAL PEER GROUPS: 2003 AND 2007
Average Annual Average Annual Average Annual
Performance Measure 2003 2007 Percent Change 2003 2007 Percent Change 2003 2007 Percent Change
Ridership
Total Passengerse
1,533,200 1,458,700 -1.2 1,158,600 1,170,400 0.3 2,120,200 2,311,200 2.2
Service Levels
Revenue Vehicle Miles 1,442,400 1,085,700 -6.9 940,600 908,200 -0.9 1,276,500 1,347,900 1.4
Revenue Vehicle Hours 106,100 85,300 -5.3 63,200 60,800 -1.0 93,000 101,200 2.1
Service Effectiveness
Passengers per Capita 13.7 13.0 -1.3 12.2 12.0 -0.4 11.7 13.2 3.1
Revenue Vehicle Hours per Capita 0.9 0.8 -2.9 0.7 0.6 -3.8 0.5 0.6 4.7
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Mile 1.1 1.3 4.3 1.2 1.3 2.0 1.5 1.6 1.6
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour 14.4 17.1 4.4 18.0 18.9 1.2 20.6 20.8 0.2
Service Efficiency
Operating Expense per Revenue Vehicle Mile $4.33 $6.00 8.5 $4.08 $5.05 5.5 $4.97 $5.75 3.7
Operating Expense per Revenue Vehicle Hour $58.87 $76.33 6.7 $60.04 $74.36 5.5 $68.89 $78.51 3.3
Cost Effectiveness
Operating Expense per Passenger,
Fixed Route Service $4.08 $4.46 2.3 $3.52 $4.17 4.3 $3.74 $4.29 3.5
Total Operating Assistance per Passenger,
All Service $3.48 $3.78 2.1 $3.33 $3.93 4.2 $3.83 $4.39 3.5
Farebox Recovery Rate
for Fixed Route Service (percent) 19.4 20.7 1.6 15.2 15.8 1.0 18.0 20.9 3.8
aBased on ridership, service, and financial data obtained from the Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database for the years 2003 thru 2007. Performance measures
are for fixed-route bus operations only.
bAverages reflect the mean of the individual performance measure values calculated for each transit system in the peer group.
cKey performance indicators were developed based on information reported by six other urban bus systems in Wisconsin: Appleton Valley Transit, Eau Claire Transit, Green Bay
Metro, Kenosha Transit, La Crosse Municial Transit Utility, and Sheboygan Transit
dKey performance indicators were developed based on information reported by ten other urban bus systems in the United States. The municipalities where these systems are
located are: Bay City, MI; Broom County, NY; Springfield, MO; Salem, OR; Erie, PA; Kalamazoo, MI; Evansville, IN; Black Hawk County, IA; Boise, ID; Bellingham, WA
eThis measure of ridership counts all passengers each time they board a transit vehicle. Passengers who transfer one or more times to different
routes of a transit system are counted as two or more passengers in completing a single trip between a specific origin and destination.
Belle Urban Averageb
for Bus Systems Averageb
for Bus Systems
System in Wisconsin Peer Groupc
in National Peer Groupd
Operating Dataa
�
�
The evaluation includes a comparison of the ridership and financial
performance of the Belle urban system (BUS) to that of a peer group
of 6 similar transit systems in Wisconsin and 10 similar transit
systems in the United States.
The peer group comparison summarized in the table below found
that:
The BUS measures about average when compared to similar
systems with respect to ridership, service levels, and operating
costs.
The BUS provides a high level of service for its service area
population size, resulting in higher service effectiveness but lower
service efficiency.
The transit system's service efficiency is the principal area of
concern identified by the peer group comparison.
�
�
�
Source: National Transit Database and SEWRPC
Evaluation of the Belle Urban System:Comparison to Peer Transit Systems
D-26
PASSENGERS PER REVENUE VEHICLE HOUR
ON BUS LOCAL ROUTES: 2006
OPERATING COST PER BOARDING PASSENGER
ON BUS LOCAL ROUTES: 2006
�
�
�
�
Route Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 have
weekday performance levels which
consistently exceed the acceptable
performance levels. Based solely
upon these measures, these routes
could continue to be operated
without change.
Route Nos. 5, 20, 27, and 86 have
weekday performance levels
consistently worse than the
acceptable performance measure.
Potential changes to these routes to
improve their performance should
be considered.
On Weekends, Route Nos. 4 and 7
are the best performers, meeting
acceptable performance levels.
Route Nos. 1, 2, and 3 meet some,
but not all, of the performance
measures. Route Nos. 5 and 86
continue to be poor performers.
All the routes of the system except
Route No. 7 had at least one
unproductive route segment. Route
Nos. 5, 27, and 86--the poorest
performers in the measures of
ridership, service effectiveness, and
cost effectiveness--are comprised of
many segments that have low
passenger activity. Routing and
service changes should be
considered for these routes.
Commission Staff evaluated the Belle Urban System (BUS) on a route-by-route
basis to measure route performance. Each route of the transit system was
reviewed on several measures, including the ridership and service efficiency and
effectiveness of each route. The route performance evaluation found that:
Source: City of Racine Department of Transportation and SEWRPC.
AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER ACTIVITY
SEGMENTS: 2006ON LOCAL ROUTE
Evaluation of Belle Urban System:Route by Route Performance
D-27
a
Based on peak period travel times between the locations identified.
Sourece: SEWRPC
b
Transit travel time includes the wait time for a transfer, if one is necessary
From Location
Travel Time To Location (minutes)a
1 2 3 4 5 6
Gateway
College
Olsen
Industrial
Park
Regency
Mall
Amtrak
Depot
Shorecrest
Plaza
Wheaton
Franciscan
- All Saints
Hospital
1 Gateway College Transit timeb
33 16 61 30 22
(1001 Main Street) Auto time - - 9 12 17 11 10
Difference (Transit - Auto) 24 4 44 19 12Ratio 3.7 1.3 3.6 2.7 2.2
2 Olsen Industrial Park Transit timeb
33 22 64 42 69
(S. Memorial Drive & Auto time 10 - - 7 15 18 12
Lincolnwood Court) Difference (Transit - Auto) 23 15 49 24 57Ratio 3.3 3.1 4.3 2.3 5.8
3 Regency Mall Transit timeb
17 32 40 39 18
(5538 Durand Avenue) Auto time 13 7 - - 8 16 8
Difference (Transit - Auto) 4 25 32 23 10Ratio 1.3 4.6 5.0 2.4 2.3
4 Amtrak Depot Transit timeb
43 75 39 64 44
(Renaissance Business Park) Auto time 17 15 8 - - 18 10
Difference (Transit - Auto) 26 60 31 46 34Ratio 2.5 5.0 4.9 3.6 3.7
5 Shorecrest Plaza Transit timeb
25 40 35 56 58
(3900 Erie Street) Auto time 11 17 16 18 - - 12
Difference (Transit - Auto) 14 23 19 38 46Ratio 2.5 2.4 2.2 3.1 4.8
6 Wheaton Franciscan - All Transit timeb
22 39 17 55 29
Saints Hospital Auto time 10 12 8 10 12 - -
(3810 Spring Street) Difference (Transit - Auto) 12 27 9 45 17Ratio 2.2 3.3 2.1 5.5 2.4
indicating where scheduling adjustments could be made. Overall, buses are over 90
percent on-time.
For the transit-to-automobile time comparison a travel time difference of more than 45
minutes is considered “tedious” for all riders. Most of the sampled transit trips took less
than 30 minutes longer than by auto. The longest trips were ones that required multiple
transfers between routes.
�
AVERAGE EVENING RIDERSHIP OF THE ROUTES OFTHE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM: OCTOBER 2006
Total
Boarding
Passengers
Percent of
Weekday
Average
Total
Boarding
Passengers
Percent of
Saturday
Average
1 800 90 11.3 390 50 12.8
2 680 - - - - 250 - - - -
3 1,080 80 7.4 420 60 14.3
4 990 110 11.1 640 70 10.9
5 380 - - - - 150 - - - -
7 800 70 8.8 540 50 9.3
20 120 6b
5.0 - - - - - -
27 80 - - - - - - - - - -
86 300 30 10.0 180 24 13.3
Total 5,230 380 7.3 2,570 254 9.9
Weekday Evening Ridershipa
Saturday Evening RidershipAverage
Saturday Total
Boarding
Passengers
Average
Weekday Total
Boarding
PassengersRoute No.
a
Reflects passengers boarding between approximately 7:30 p.m. and midnight on weekdays
and between approximately 7:30 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on Saturdays.
b
Route No. 20 only operates one partial trip after 7:30 p.m. on weekdays. The Route No. 20
bus departs the JohnsonDiversey Waxdale plant on 8310 16th Street at 10:39 p.m., travels
west to Grandview Business Park at IH 94 and STH 20, and departs Grandview at 11:04 p.m..
The bus arrives at the downtown transit center at 11:40 p.m.
COMPARISON OF TRANSIT AND AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL TIMES BETWEEN SIXSELECTED LOCATIONS IN THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM SERVICE AREA: 2009
�
�
Evening ridership
represents about 7
percent of the ridership
on the regular routes on
weekdays and about 10
percent of the ridership
on the regular routes on
Saturdays.
Buses rarely depart bus
stops more than three
minutes after the
scheduled time. Early
departures (more than
one-minute before the
scheduled time) from bus
stops were found to be a
problem on some routes,
Evaluations of specific aspects of the Belle Urban System BUS transit system found that:
Evaluation of Belle Urban System:Evening Service, On-time Performance, andTransit Travel Time
Source: SEWRPC
D-28
Identifying Unmet Transit Travel
Needs: Transit Needs Index
TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX FOR RACINE COUNTY: 2000
�
�
Commission staff developed a transit needs index using using
year 2000 U.S. Census block group population data. The index
reflects residential concentrations of certain population groups
that have historically been considered “transit-dependent”
including:
Elderly individuals (ages 65 and older)
Persons in low-income households
Disabled individuals, and
Households with no vehicle available.
The map below graphically displays the resulting transit need
levels in terms of high, moderate, and low transit needs for all
Census block groups in Racine County.
There are high transit needs throughout the City of
Racine and parts of Mt. Pleasant and Sturtevant.
West of IH 94, Union Grove and Burlington also have
areas with high transit needs.
�
�
�
�
�
�
THE TRANSIT NEED INDEX IS CALCULATED BY RANKING CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS BASED ON THE PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULATION OR HOUSEHOLDS IN
FOUR CATEGORIES: ELDERLY PERSONS (65 AND OLDER), PERSONS IN LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, DISABLED PERSONS, AND HOUSEHOLDS WITH NO
VEHICLE AVAILABLE. EACH RANKED BLOCK GROUP IS ASSIGNED A SCORE FROM 1 TO 6, IN EACH CATEGORY, WITH A 1 FOR THE LOWEST PERCENTAGES
AND A 6 FOR THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGES. THE TRANSIT NEED INDEX IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE SCORES FOR ALL FOUR CATEGORIES.
TRANSIT NEEDS INDEX LEVEL
LOW (4-11)
MODERATE (12-17)
HIGH (18-24)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and SEWRPC.
D-29
Identifying Unmet Transit Travel Needs:
Discussion Groups and Coordination Plans
�
�
�
Members of the Racine County Workforce Development Board,
representing economic development agencies, private industry, and
County human services staff
Social services agencies, including County human services staff,
representatives from non-profits that work with elderly, disabled, and
low-income populations, and representatives from health clinics
Users of the Belle Urban System
Commission staff held three facilitated discussion sessions with the
following groups to solicit input on the unmet transit travel needs:
Discussion Groups
Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Coordination Plans
In fall of 2008, over the course of three meetings in Burlington, stakeholders
from Racine County developed a Public Transit-Human Services
Transportation Coordination plan for the County. As part of that process, a
list of unmet needs for public and human services transportation had been
developed and included in the coordination plan.
•
The unmet needs for transit travel identified during the discussion groups
and the coordination planning process are included in the summary of
unmet transit travel needs on the following boards.
D-30
Summary of Unmet Transit Travel
Needs: Eastern Racine County�
�
�
�
�
A need to connect the BUS services in Kenosha County,
possibly via UW-Parkside and/or via Green Bay Road (STH
31);
A need to add BUS service on holidays, and to extend BUS
service hours on weekends;
A need for more bus shelters;
A taxi service in the City of Racine with reasonable response
times; and,
A need to improve BUS service to some areas in Sturtevant
and Mt. Pleasant by extending routes or increasing service
frequency.
TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE AREAS AND MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS OUTSIDETHE WALK ACCESS SERVICE AREA FOR THE BELLE URBAN SYSTEM: 2009
D-31
Summary of Unmet Transit Travel
Needs: Western Racine County�
�
�
�
A need for an affordable, wheelchair accessible service for
grocery shopping, medical appointments, adult day care, and
daily work travel. Specifically, subisidized taxi and/or shuttle
routes for major activity centers in the Burlington-Rochester-
Waterford area.
A need for a wider array of other transportation options,
including volunteer driver services and ridesharing programs.
A need to consider and identify transit services that, although
currently not in great demand due to the economic recession,
may be needed by the end of the five-year planning period as
the economy recovers.
A need to serve travel to and from adjacent counties, including
Milwaukee, Kenosha, Walworth, and Waukesha Counties.
Such travel would include that for work-commuting as well as
for medical trips to major hospitals in Milwaukee County.
PLACE OF WORK OUTSIDE RACINE COUNTY FORRESIDENTS IN EASTERN AND WESTERN RACINE COUNTY: 2000
Source: U. S. Census Bureau and SEWRPC.
GRAPHIC SCALE
0
0
1
5
2
10
3
15
4
20
5
25
6 MILES
30 35 40,000 FEET
NOTE: MUNICIPALITIES OUTSIDE RACINE
COUNTY THAT HAVE LESS THAN 300
RACINE COUNTY RESIDENTS COMMUTING
TO WORK ARE NOT SHOWN
DIRECTION OF TRAVEL FROM RESIDENCE
TO WORK
MUNICIPALITY OUTSIDE RACINE COUNTY
THAT MORE THAN 300 RESIDENTS OF
RACINE COUNTY IDENTIFIED AS THE
LOCATION OF THEIR PLACE OF WORK
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITH PLACE OF
WORK IN MUNICIPALITY
428
AREAS WITHIN RACINE COUNTY FOR
WHICH PLACE OF WORK FOR RESIDENTS
WAS EXAMINED
D-32
Your Suggestions For Service
Changes: Vote Your Preference!EASTERN RACINE COUNTY: POTENTIAL SERVICE
IMPROVEMENTS OR CHANGES"VOTES"
Extend routes to more areas outside the City
More frequent service to IH 94 and STH 20 interchange
Change BUS midday service frequency to 30 minutes
More frequent service during evenings and weekends
Add BUS service hours on weekends
Provide BUS service on holidays
Reduce travel time for long trips
More bus shelters
Provide taxi service
Allow short deviations from BUS routes to pick up/drop off passengers on request
Provide service to UW-Parkside
Improve express bus service to downtown Kenosha
New route via STH 31 (Green Bay Road) to major employment and activity centers
on Kenosha's west side
Service to employment centers in Oak Creek and Franklin
Vanpooling or ridesharing program
WESTERN RACINE COUNTY: POTENTIAL NEW SERVICES "VOTES"
Taxi service for Burlington/Waterford/Rochester area
Taxi service for all of Racine County west of IH 94
Shuttle serving commercial areas, elderly & low-income housing, and social
service agencies in Burlington area
Vanpooling or ridesharing program
Service to Kenosha County
Service to Walworth County
Service to Waukesha County
Commuter route to downtown Milwaukee
Commuter route to southern Milwaukee County
Commuter route to City of Racine
D-33
Your Suggestions For Service Changes:
Where do You Have a Problem?
D-34
Appendix E
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS CONCERNING THE RACINE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT PLAN: 2011-2015
(This page intentionally left blank)
JournalTimes.comOctober 25, 2009
E-1
JournalTimes.comOctober 26, 2009
E-2
JournalTimes.comOctober 26, 2009
E-3
E-4
JournalTimes.comOctober 28, 2009
JournalTimes.comNovember 3, 2009
E-5
E-6
JournalTimes.comNovember 8, 2009
JournalTimes.comNovember 18, 2009
E-7